punishment can be seen to fall under the category of a Theory of the Right rather than a Theory of the Good. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism, as the name suggests and tells, covers all theories that justify the evil of punishment only when that punishment has some utility. It is therefore forward looking, and consequentialist in nature [Baker, 1971:69], as it holds the belief that, ultimately, the only morally significant features of an act are the good and bad consequences produced by it. The word utility has been used to justify punishment in two different ways in utilitarian writing: Use: that punishment is only justified when it has some use – that is, preventing further crime [Lessnoff, 1971:141]. Value: that punishment is only justified when it is most conducive to the welfare of society [Ten, 1987:3], that is, the value society gains from the punishment is more than the disadvantages incurred by the offender. However most utilitarians agree that not only must punishment have both use and value, but also that there be no other solution that would deter as effectively with less distress [Honderich 1989:59]. While utilitarianists may slightly disagree on why the evil of punishment can be justified, authors agree that the purpose of punishment is to reduce crime. This purpose directly relates to the principle of distribution of utilitarianism. Most utilitarianists agree that there are three ways to reduce crime: incapacitation, deterrence and reform. There are 2 main types of prevention: specific and general prevention. Specific prevention is aimed at the offender him/herself whilst general prevention is aimed at the public in general. Specific Prevention Wright [1982] in his discussion of Utilitarianism, describes three main goals of individual prevention. “Firstly”, he begins “imprisonment deters [the] individual from committing crime” [p. 26]. So one reason for sending the offender to prison for a crime, is to make him less likely to commit further crimes through fear of more imprisonment. “Secondly”, he continues, “prison is...to protect the public from certain offenders” [p. 27]. So his second reason is we send offenders to prison to render them incapable of committing crimes. Thirdly, he concludes, “prisons [are]...to rehabilitate”. So we send offenders to prison to rehabilitate them, so that they no longer need to commit crimes. There is some debate about this third point, with some authors following the above example, focusing on rehabilitation as the third goal [Braithwaite & Petit, 1990:4; Bean,